If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

if you could change just 1 thing

Just curious but if you could make just 1 and only 1 change to the sda what would it be? Mine would be to eliminate permit fees. but make a safety class mandatory. In other words take a nra or approved non government safety course and let your completion card be your permit

So, petty tyrant, infringements are OK as long as they are yours with which you agree. I see.

Do you know that the NRA teaches their instructors that a fee is essential to proper teaching methods, that a NRA certified instructor must charge for a NRA course? Follow the money, to perquisites privileges for permitees - P4P.

So, petty tyrant, infringements are OK as long as they are yours with which you agree. I see.

Do you know that the NRA teaches their instructors that a fee is essential to proper teaching methods, that a NRA certified instructor must charge for a NRA course? Follow the money, to perquisites privileges for permitees - P4P.

While the nra never told me that I don't teach for free that's a given time is money. I don't support tyranny but I do support life. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility of which appropriate handling of one is essential. When people are taught safety accidents reduce incredibly and you'd be surprised how many students diddnt knowthe first thing about safty

While the nra never told me that I don't teach for free that's a given time is money. I don't support tyranny but I do support life. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility of which appropriate handling of one is essential. When people are taught safety accidents reduce incredibly and you'd be surprised how many students diddnt knowthe first thing about safty

Your post seems to indicate that you would support mandatory gun training before being able to own, possess, or carry a firearm.

I would disagree..."responsibility" is not a requirement for our RKBA ... people can buy hammers and crush their own skulls due to the lack of training.

Training can never be a prerequisite for any right of a person to exercising their RBKA no matter the benefits or not.

Hmm, lets see if I could change one thing about the SDA what would it be? I would eliminate it all together, because frankly it is unconstitutional! The second amendment is pretty clear cut black and white, Shall NOT be INFRINGED and legislation is NOT "due process" 5A!! The 2A should be all anyone needs to own, possess, and carry for self defense. If someone then uses a firearm in malice or otherwise hurts someone during a crime with a firearm, nail their ass to the wall, public hanging is still an option in the books in some states so make an example of them! Let those intent on hurting others with a firearm know that is not acceptable, don't give them free room and board!!

Any thing other than constitutional carry is an infringement and an overreach by our government and the anti crowd!

While the nra never told me that I don't teach for free that's a given time is money. I don't support tyranny but I do support life. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility of which appropriate handling of one is essential. When people are taught safety accidents reduce incredibly and you'd be surprised how many students diddnt knowthe first thing about safty

If you support "mandatory" anything from the govt, you do support tryanny.

Last edited by ron73440; 04-16-2014 at 02:12 PM.

What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

Just curious but if you could make just 1 and only 1 change to the sda what would it be? Mine would be to eliminate permit fees. but make a safety class mandatory. In other words take a nra or approved non government safety course and let your completion card be your permit

I wholly agree, but I think it would be best if it was applied to the Rights protected by the First Amendment. For example, Freedom of speech should be a given, but even though no fee would come with it, there should be some form of mandatory course required prior to exercising it so that people can speak using correct grammar and elocution, as well as proper use of pronouns and adjectives.

/end DRIPPING SARCASM

That is what people sound like when they call for any "mandatory training" or the like to exercise what should by now be well understood to be a Right.

Should a class of some sort be taken? Yes (in the interest of understanding the firearm mechanism, use, and maintenance; this can now be done on YouTube and the range, but I digress). Should it be REQUIRED? No.

Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-16-2014 at 07:49 PM.
Reason: Smiley to soften perceived tone

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

I wholly agree, but I think it would be best if it was applied to the Rights protected by the First Amendment. For example, Freedom of speech should be a given, but even though no fee would come with it, there should be some form of mandatory course required prior to exercising it so that people can speak using correct grammar and elocution, as well as proper use of pronouns and adjectives.

/end DRIPPING SARCASM

That is what people sound like when they call for any "mandatory training" or the like to exercise what should by now be well understood to be a Right.

Should a class of some sort be taken? Yes (in the interest of understanding the firearm mechanism, use, and maintenance; this can now be done on YouTube and the range, but I digress). Should it be REQUIRED? No.

Sadly a lot of politicians have tried just that. I have heard where they tried to ban the n word (racial) but so far have not heard of any success.

Tyranny though I dont support it does appear to be on the rise attempt wise. I was glad to see the people in Nevada actually stand up for their rights for a change and forsee more of the patriots rise to defend our rights in the near future.

Sadly a lot of politicians have tried just that. I have heard where they tried to ban the n word (racial) but so far have not heard of any success. [ ... ]

Barbara Streisand. The politician's only tool is legislation and prior restraint of speech fails on its face. No word has ever been prohibited by politician legislated statute, but only by the weak minded politically correct censors.

Cite the statute banning a word, or cite the legislation attempting to ban a word.

What do you disagree with? If something is mandatory then force will be used against you if you don't comply.

If you don't believe it try not having your mandatory license plate on your car when you go for a drive.

You enforcing mandatory training on me is you deciding for me how to spend my time and money to make you feel better.

I think he's saying that if he were to eliminate one thing from the law as it currently exists it would be to, in effect, eliminate the license by proving a certain proficiency with firearms. While not an extensible from of authorization I assume he has the impression that it would reduce accidents related to firearms however a mandate is something forcefully projected onto a people. Personally I disagree with all of the SDA, NFA, infringements—because that is what they are. Substituting one infringement for another is not the way to go. It's fact that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but are we also constitutionally obliged to train with them and understand firearms safety? I don't believe so.

I can almost guarantee there are people who don't know how to operate a firearm safely and that for whatever reason doesn't jive with people; but it's the law. I also don't think an ill-intentioned individual should wield an AR-15 if they're consider acting on murderous thoughts but if everyone else around him is obviously exercising their right to carry and bear arms I think he'll have a few hundred reasons to reconsider. I think if we adhere to the law of the constitution on this issue that we'll start to begin to put out these fires before they even start. The issue isn't with the firearms, it's with the soft targets we create by banning their carry by good people. And for no good reasons.

I simultaneously and in equal quantity respect and fear my weapon because I am fully cognizant of the irreparable damage it can do and I hope others understand exactly what they're bringing themselves into when they carry. I don't think it's for everyone and for those who do carry I pray that if you have to use your firearm in that your bullets fly straight and true to the target.

Barbara Streisand. The politician's only tool is legislation and prior restraint of speech fails on its face. No word has ever been prohibited by politician legislated statute, but only by the weak minded politically correct censors.

Cite the statute banning a word, or cite the legislation attempting to ban a word.

Well with te word attempt you have to understand it means try. Though I don't think it ever went anywhere you'd have to googel texas mayor wants to ban n word.

I never said it was introduced I was saying they would like to and that the mayor was looking at it.

Section 26 of the bill of rights to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma states, "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." This is the justification for the SDA. I would amend it as follows: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited."

I could start carrying my Mini-14.

Last edited by Elm Creek Smith; 05-09-2014 at 03:37 PM.

"If the truth hurts, it should." - Dad

" A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave." - Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity

"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." - Sam Spade, The Maltese Falcon

Section 26 of the bill of rights to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma states, "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." This is the justification for the SDA. I would amend it as follows: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited."

I could start carrying my Mini-14.

There is the start of the problem" but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."
How about the U.S. constitution, Its plain english and is exactly what is supposed to prohibit the states from "regulating" the carrying of arms. Regulating ( which also means organized not suppressed) a militia is one thing, but arms is another. We cant pick and choose what parts we like and what parts we don't. We either honor and obey it all or none of it!

"I could start carrying my Mini-14." Yes you should be able to if you wanted to regardless of what someone else thinks is necessary or not. Then only if you use it with malice or carelessly in a crowd or public place and someone innocent is injured then thats when the law should come in and provide for the stern penalties and Im not talking about provide tax payer funded room and board, that also serves as a deterrent to crime as well as the many armed LAC.

Stay safe and God bless.

Everyone will hate you because of me.
But not a hair of your head will perish.
Stand firm, and you will win life.
(Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

I would repeal Title 21 Section 1272. Doing so would make the SDA pointless outside of getting a permit that is recognized by other states. Not to mention that Section 1272 is unconstitutional as it is a prohibition on carry of all sorts of tools and not a simple regulation. As for regulation of carry, I only see the most basic of regulation (such as you can't "carry" it in your hands due to the appearance of brandishing, or that the muzzle of a long gun must be pointed down when slung) as being proper.